Date: Dec 10, 2012 1:31 AM
Author: Paul A. Tanner III
Subject: Re: Democracy - how to achieve it?
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 11:45 PM, GS Chandy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Responding to Paul Tanner's (PT's) post dated Dec 10, 2012 7:55 AM (pasted for reference below my signature):
> From my 'outsider view', I'd generally agree with PT's claim that 'private charity' would never be able successfully to take up the Mission of 'health care' of a nation, be it the USA or India or China. In my view, there would have to be some kind of 'societal initiative' to accomplish national health care in the least successfully.
> I believe that PT may be mistaken in his idea that Kirby Urner is advocating that national health care be taken up by private charity. For instance, here is a quote from what Kirby had posted:
>>> This proves that the Feds have a very different
>>> mindset from the Swedes. One cannot expect the Feds to
>>> have anything close to the collective intelligence of
>>> Swedes, if history is any guide.
> To which circumstance, the evident 'solution' is:
> "Raise the collective intelligence of US citizens!!!"
This is actually supports what I said. "The Feds" is just the type of talk used by haters of the US government - it is not in the least talk about the population of the US.
> - probably this will be found to be the ONLY way to arrive at resolution of the issue(s) involved.
All that is needed is to expand Medicare and Medicaid funding.
> In themselves, the health care issues (without taking 'collective intelligence' into consideration) are broadly as follows:
> Quite sizable funding is required to operate any publicly funded health care system.
> In view of the sizable funding required to provide some kind of effective health care access to all citizens, how to:
> a) convince citizens that they should contribute to the health care program?
> b) ensure that it is done effectively (by whichever may be the designated agency that takes it up)?
> Both 'a' and 'b' above are essential.
> Public funding of any health care scheme cannot happen (in a democracy) if citizens are not convinced that they should contribute; citizens will not wish to contribute to an ineffective system (which is unfortunately what we have in place in most nations).
The point of what I write is to educate people as to what the facts actually are, to try to convince some to vote for universal health care by voting accordingly for the party and people who would expand the funding for the existing programs enough to achieve universal health care.
Kirby, on the other hand, does the opposite - the point of his writing is to achieve the opposite, to try to get people to vote against universal health care by voting accordingly for the party and people who would not expand and even start to cut the funding for even just the existing programs.
Either government will be involved in helping to pay for health care or it will not. Either government's present role in helping to pay for health care will expand, stay the same, or it will contract.
I am arguing for it to expand. Kirby argues against that, with all kinds of hints that he would like to see it contract.
The necessary result of it even just not expanding is that the only thing left to meet all that growing unmet need is charity.
And yes, the unmet need is growing since the private marketplace is rejecting a greater and greater percentage of the population, leaving more and more with no health care. We now have close to 100 million people - close to 1/3 of the entire population - that are either under-insured with junk insurance with out of pocket expenses so high they might as well not have insurance, or with no coverage at all. (There are now more than 50 million with no health care coverage at all.) And what has charity been doing all these years or that population that has now swelled to almost 100 million? Almost nothing in comparison to the total need, barely scratching the surface. And what will charity do in all those future years? The same as it always has, almost nothing in comparison to the total need, barely scratching the surface.
Now do you see that he is in fact advocating that national health care be taken up at least more and more by private charity? Now do you see that what he arguing for - less government and more charity - would result in increasing morbidity, suffering, and premature death, given all the mathematical facts I gave?
I reiterate all those mathematical facts in my last post
"Re: Democracy - how to achieve it?"
including all the links.